Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD - Fur - Chapter 40-35. Domesticated Fur-Bearing Animals. | S D C L § 40-35-1 to 6 | SD ST § 40-35-1 to 6 | These South Dakota statutes pertain to domesticated fur-bearing animals. These animals are subject to private ownership, and documentation is required to possess live fur-bearing animals. Products made from domestic furbearers are considered to be agricultural products and breeding such animals, or marketing the products, is an agricultural pursuit subject to the Department of Agriculture. | Statute | ||||||||
| NH - Exotic Pets, Wildlife - Chapter 207. Import, Possession, or Release of Wildlife. | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 207:14 - 207:15-a | NH ST § 207:14 - 207:15-a | This New Hampshire section states that no person shall import, possess, sell, exhibit, or release any live marine species or wildlife, or the eggs or progeny thereof, without first obtaining a permit from the executive director except as otherwise permitted. The executive director has the authority to determine the time period and any other conditions governing the issuance of such permit. Any wildlife release or imported contrary to these provisions are subject to seizure. | Statute | ||||||||
| In re: Tri-State Zoological Park of Western Maryland, Inc. | 2013 WL 8214620 (U.S.D.A.) | Mr. Candy started Tri-State, a zoo, in 2002 as a way to provide his children and other members of the community in Cumberland, Maryland, with an entertaining and educational activity. However, several violations of the Animal Welfare Act led to a cease and desist order and a 45 day suspension of the zoo’s license. | Case | |||||||||
| Hearn v. City of Overland Park | 772 P.2d 758 (Kan. 1989) | 244 Kan. 638 (1989) |
Syllabus by the Court In an action to enjoin the City of Overland Park from enforcing an ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs within the city, the record is examined and it is held: (1) The ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; (2) the ordinance does not violate the due process rights of plaintiffs under the United States and Kansas Constitutions; (3) the ordinance does not violate the equal protection clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions; and (4) the district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). |
Case | ||||||||
| Chambers v. Justice Court Precinct One | 95 S.W.3d 874 (Tex.App.-Dallas, 2006) | 2006 WL 1792842 (Tex.App.-Dallas) |
In this Texas case, a justice court divested an animal owner of over 100 animals and ordered that the animals be given to a nonprofit organization. The owner sought review of the forfeiture in district court. The district court subsequently dismissed appellant's suit for lack of jurisdiction. Under the Texas Code, an owner may only appeal if the justice court orders the animal to be sold at a public auction. Thus, the Court of Appeals held that the statute limiting right of appeal in animal forfeiture cases precluded animal owner from appealing the justice court order. |
Case | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 3 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| OK - Leash - § 2217. Public access and use of state parks--Prohibitions (dog leash) | 74 Okl.St.Ann. § 2217 | OK ST T. 74 § 2217 | No person may enter a state park with a dog, unless the dog is on a leash, or permit any dog to enter a state park or recreation area under the jurisdiction of the Commission. It is further provided that any authorized member of the Department or any authorized employee of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation may kill any vicious dog found running loose in any state park which poses imminent threat to humans or other animals, or which may be chasing or running any game in the state park. Any such authorized employees of the Departments shall not be held liable for the killing of said dog. | Statute | ||||||||
| MO - Veterinary - 20 CSR 2270-6.011 Rules of Professional Conduct | 20 MO ADC 2270-6.011 | 20 Mo. Code of State Regulations 2270-6.011 | Subsection 11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for veterinarians provides that a licensee shall not reveal confidential, proprietary or privileged facts or data or any other sensitive information contained in a patient's medical records without the prior consent of the client except as otherwise authorized or required by law, regulation, or other order. The subsection specifically states that "[w]hen these situations [of abuse and neglect] cannot be resolved through education, the board considers it the responsibility of the veterinarian to report such cases to the appropriate authorities." Thus, the rule seems to create an ethical responsibility that mandates the reporting of abuse or neglect by veterinarians. | Administrative | ||||||||
| MN - Wildlife, possession - Chapter 97A. Game and Fish. Possession and Transportation of Wild Animals. | M. S. A. § 97A.501 - 56 | MN ST § 97A.501 - 56 | These Minnesota statutes restrict possession and transportation of wild animals. No one may transport wild animals taken, bought, or sold in violation of the game and fish laws. In general, a person may not take, import, transport, or sell an endangered species of wild animal, but there are exceptions. | Statute | ||||||||
| Salzer v. King Kong Zoo | 773 S.E.2d 548 (N.C. Ct. App. July 7, 2015) | 242 N.C. App. 120, 2015 WL 4081841 (N.C. Ct. App. July 7, 2015) | The Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting dismissal of their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In 2014, Plaintiffs filed a civil suit under North Carolina's anti-cruelty "citizen suit" provision, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 19A–1, against King Kong Zoo. Plaintiffs contended that the zoo kept animals in "grossly substandard" conditions. King Kong Zoo is an Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) licensed exhibitor of wild and domestic animals. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the applicable law here is the AWA and “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 19A–1 ... has no application to licensed zoo operations.” On appeal, this Court found in a matter of first impression that the AWA does not expressly preempt claims under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 19A. Instead, the AWA "empowers Section 19A to work in conjunction with the AWA." The Court also found no conflict of law that would preclude bringing the action. The matter was reversed and remanded to the Cherokee County District Court for determination consistent with this opinion. | Case |